3 ms·
I don't see why MOOCs are pitched as revolutionary in teaching. They're still fundamentally lecture-based, and lectures are a terrible way to teach. I'm most fa
by capnrefsmmat 13y ago
I don't see why MOOCs are pitched as revolutionary in teaching. They're still fundamentally lecture-based, and lectures are a terrible way to teach. I'm most familiar with research in physics education, where an average intro physics class fills only 24% of students' gaps in understanding.
On the other hand, some professors are experimenting with more interactive methods -- not less interactive MOOCs -- and getting three times better results:
http://www.refsmmat.com/articles/shutup.html http://www.refsmmat.com/articles/shutup.html
- hershel 13y agoVery interesting link. Thanks. Based on the conclusion of this link, it would be interesting to combine MOOC courses for the lecture part, with a technology like knewton, which by monitoring exercises you do , learn about what areas you have problems(and perhaps about misconceptions) , and can guide you to relevant content.
- my_username_is_ 13y agoUdacity, Thurin's MOOC platform, is interactive and was designed to not simply follow the lecture style of current classrooms
- saraid216 13y ago"Interactive" how? The quizzes? These have been a staple in current classrooms for a decades. Is there something else?